Just intresting. The Mystery of Minot: Loose nukes and a cluster of dead airmen raise troubling ques - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Just intresting. The Mystery of Minot: Loose nukes and a cluster of dead airmen raise troubling ques (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 11/25/2007 9:45:35 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Are there really any 20 year old B52 pilots in the Air Force?

Yeah, I had "Another Minot B-52 pilot, 20-year-old Adam Barrs" cut to paste in my two cents worth.
I knew some guys that got stationed at Minot when I was in...sounded like going crazy was a normal thing around there..

ETA: I own page three! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Posted: 11/25/2007 9:50:35 AM EDT

[#2]

Here's the previous thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=630990

No need to re-cover the reasons why that article is full of male beef byproducts.

Posted: 11/25/2007 9:55:44 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are there really any 20 year old B52 pilots in the Air Force?

I highly doubt it as the person would have to graduate college and finish flight school before they were 21. Possible maybe, but not likely.

and if they were that good, why pick the b-52? (unless there were no slots open for anything else)

Posted: 11/25/2007 9:57:12 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
What's a "Special forces weather commando"?

They operate the Halliburton weather machine. Duh...

Posted: 11/25/2007 9:57:14 AM EDT

[#5]

Posted: 11/25/2007 9:58:48 AM EDT

[#6]

That we ever found out about this is amazing. Nuclear weapons do not just find their way onto an aircraft. I'd say there was far more to this than the media is reporting.

I doubt this was a fuck-up.
Matt

Posted: 11/25/2007 9:58:50 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are there really any 20 year old B52 pilots in the Air Force?

I highly doubt it as the person would have to graduate college and finish flight school before they were 21. Possible maybe, but not likely.

and if they were that good, why pick the b-52? (unless there were no slots open for anything else)

A lot of pilots actually prefer the heavies, since multi-engine planes are what the airlines fly. They're thinking post-uniform employment.

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:08:44 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
That we ever found out about this is amazing. Nuclear weapons do not just find their way onto an aircraft. I'd say there was far more to this than the media is reporting.

I doubt this was a fuck-up.
Matt

You would be wrong on all counts. This was a combination of incredible group stupidity, gross violations of both orders and regulations, and a desire to cut corners to make their lives easier.

Dual-capable aircraft units have to be experts on both the conventional and nuclear missions. However, one is accomplished every day, and the other isn't.

So, what happens? They focus on the day-to-day mission, and look at the nuclear one about three months before the inspection team lands. That's human nature, the same way my wife would start to deep-clean the house three days before my mother-in-law comes to visit.

Unfortunately, we're talking about nukes, not MILs. They screwed up by the numbers. They tried to create their own "easy" button and the loss of security of nuclear weapons was the result. They're now paying the price for their laziness.

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:10:25 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are there really any 20 year old B52 pilots in the Air Force?

I highly doubt it as the person would have to graduate college and finish flight school before they were 21. Possible maybe, but not likely.

and if they were that good, why pick the b-52? (unless there were no slots open for anything else)

A lot of pilots actually prefer the heavies, since multi-engine planes are what the airlines fly. They're thinking post-uniform employment.

doesn't the AF still use quality spread slotting? both my dad (AF) and my sister's ex (USN) graduated near the top of their classes but were denied their 1st choice due to this policy.

dad wound up in B-47s instead of F-4s, and the ex wound up in rotary instead of F-18s.

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:11:53 AM EDT

[#10]

All them there cajuns needed something hotter than they're pepper sauce and worked out a deal for the nukes............................

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:21:40 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That we ever found out about this is amazing. Nuclear weapons do not just find their way onto an aircraft. I'd say there was far more to this than the media is reporting.

I doubt this was a fuck-up.
Matt

You would be wrong on all counts. This was a combination of incredible group stupidity, gross violations of both orders and regulations, and a desire to cut corners to make their lives easier.

Dual-capable aircraft units have to be experts on both the conventional and nuclear missions. However, one is accomplished every day, and the other isn't.

So, what happens? They focus on the day-to-day mission, and look at the nuclear one about three months before the inspection team lands. That's human nature, the same way my wife would start to deep-clean the house three days before my mother-in-law comes to visit.

Unfortunately, we're talking about nukes, not MILs. They screwed up by the numbers. They tried to create their own "easy" button and the loss of security of nuclear weapons was the result. They're now paying the price for their laziness.

'if you say so... Having never seen (or heard of) a weapon (conventional or not) on my airplane what wasn't supposed to be there, I find the scenerio presented by the media really tough to swallow. For instance, I've never seen a grey bomb where a blue one is supposed to be. I've never seen a live AIM-9 where a CATM is supposed to be. And that's just conventional shit.

I pre-flight every single weapon on my airplane EVERY time. I find it difficult to believe that a multi-crewed airplane missed that on pre-flight. I've caught many mistakes (unlocked racks, mis-set fuzes, etc) on pre-flight, but I've never seen a fuck-up that would require so much paperwork. There are just certain things you check when pre-flighting weapons, unloaded or not. It isn't rocket science.

If the aircrew did gloss over their pre-flight, they deserve every bit of punishment they get. I find it difficult to believe, though.
Matt

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:22:45 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
i3.photobucket.com/albums/y80/TA9100ft/motivationalposteraf6.jpg

Here's one that I made that has the type of weapons that they fucked up with.

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:24:31 AM EDT

[#13]

While I'm answering this drivel--as far as the suicides--did anyone even notice that three of the deaths weren't even folks stationed at Minot?

Frueh, the "Special forces weather commando," was stationed at Hulburt Field, FLORIDA.

The guy and his wife were stationed at BARKSDALE, and there's no mention of what unit he was in. He could have belonged to the finance office or been a plumber in the Civil Engineering Squadron for all we know.

The kid at Minot was a victim of a CAR ACCIDENT, not a suspicious suicide. Any bets on whether him and his 20-yr old buddy were drinking?

Hey, it just occured to me--Malmstrom AFB in Montana had two suicides this summer--wow, they must be related too!

This clown strung together a bunch of facts, and through selective reporting and some creative innuendo has managed to construct a conspiracy theory....unfortunately, there are gullible people out there stupid enough to buy it without even thinking.

Oh, BTW, we do have "special forces weather commandos." Our Combat Control Teams (the successors to the WWII Pathfinders) usually have a weather guy accompany them, who is trained to their standards.

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:37:18 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That we ever found out about this is amazing. Nuclear weapons do not just find their way onto an aircraft. I'd say there was far more to this than the media is reporting.

I doubt this was a fuck-up.
Matt

You would be wrong on all counts. This was a combination of incredible group stupidity, gross violations of both orders and regulations, and a desire to cut corners to make their lives easier.

Dual-capable aircraft units have to be experts on both the conventional and nuclear missions. However, one is accomplished every day, and the other isn't.

So, what happens? They focus on the day-to-day mission, and look at the nuclear one about three months before the inspection team lands. That's human nature, the same way my wife would start to deep-clean the house three days before my mother-in-law comes to visit.

Unfortunately, we're talking about nukes, not MILs. They screwed up by the numbers. They tried to create their own "easy" button and the loss of security of nuclear weapons was the result. They're now paying the price for their laziness.

'if you say so... Having never seen (or heard of) a weapon (conventional or not) on my airplane what wasn't supposed to be there, I find the scenerio presented by the media really tough to swallow. For instance, I've never seen a grey bomb where a blue one is supposed to be. I've never seen a live AIM-9 where a CATM is supposed to be. And that's just conventional shit.

I pre-flight every single weapon on my airplane EVERY time. I find it difficult to believe that a multi-crewed airplane missed that on pre-flight. I've caught many mistakes (unlocked racks, mis-set fuzes, etc) on pre-flight, but I've never seen a fuck-up that would require so much paperwork. There are just certain things you check when pre-flighting weapons, unloaded or not. It isn't rocket science.

If the aircrew did gloss over their pre-flight, they deserve every bit of punishment they get. I find it difficult to believe, though.
Matt

The WA Post article has it entirely correct. They were expecting to carry twelve, there were twelve on the plane. The copilot, given the task of checking them, checked the ones on one pylon (the unloaded ones), and blew off the other. If he had chosen left instead of right (or right instead of left, you get the idea), he would have caught it.

In the ACM, the "loaded" indicator is a small postage-stamp sized window that the crew looks through. If they see silver, it's loaded; it's not simply a matter of blue vs. green bombs.

Many failure points to make this happen, and many people had to have an attitude of complacency to make those failure points work. That's why this is such a big deal--this mistake exposed an attitude of complacency in an entire society, if you will (B52 ops & maintenance). A huge, systemic leadership failure (not putting the right priority on nuke operations) led to complacency at the technician level.

What do you think the results would be if the engineering dept of a nuclear sub was found to be cutting corners on safety & security?

Same basic effect, but on an entire base, not a ships's department.

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:40:45 AM EDT

[#15]

Any group of people that large is going to have multiple deaths over a given time period.

I would like to read the report on exactly how the mix up happened, however, along with the UCMJ action handed out to the guilty parties.

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:48:39 AM EDT

[#16]

Yep, there's something very fucked up about that whole mess.

Occam's razor tels me that people are stupid and make mistakes.

.
.
.

My tinfoil is vibrating though. (Anyone have a cure for vibrating foil hat?)

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:01:50 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I'm from Minot. Believe me, suicide is an option.

IT SURE IS...

In the three years I spent at a SAC northern-tier base, we had around 8 successful suicides, and dozens more of varying success.

a shithole base

a shithole location

a shitbag command

an absolute power-mad nutcase of a commander

etc., etc., and no other way to escape it.

We had guys on the verge of retirement trying to kill themselves. And most of the notes they left indicated their reasons were work related. My unit had guys with 17 and 18 years of service actually separate, instead of doing another few years for the retirement package.

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:14:22 AM EDT

[#18]

Sounds like Broken Arrow with Travolta and Slater.

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:23:03 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That we ever found out about this is amazing. Nuclear weapons do not just find their way onto an aircraft. I'd say there was far more to this than the media is reporting.

I doubt this was a fuck-up.
Matt

You would be wrong on all counts. This was a combination of incredible group stupidity, gross violations of both orders and regulations, and a desire to cut corners to make their lives easier.

Dual-capable aircraft units have to be experts on both the conventional and nuclear missions. However, one is accomplished every day, and the other isn't.

So, what happens? They focus on the day-to-day mission, and look at the nuclear one about three months before the inspection team lands. That's human nature, the same way my wife would start to deep-clean the house three days before my mother-in-law comes to visit.

Unfortunately, we're talking about nukes, not MILs. They screwed up by the numbers. They tried to create their own "easy" button and the loss of security of nuclear weapons was the result. They're now paying the price for their laziness.

'if you say so... Having never seen (or heard of) a weapon (conventional or not) on my airplane what wasn't supposed to be there, I find the scenerio presented by the media really tough to swallow. For instance, I've never seen a grey bomb where a blue one is supposed to be. I've never seen a live AIM-9 where a CATM is supposed to be. And that's just conventional shit.

I pre-flight every single weapon on my airplane EVERY time. I find it difficult to believe that a multi-crewed airplane missed that on pre-flight. I've caught many mistakes (unlocked racks, mis-set fuzes, etc) on pre-flight, but I've never seen a fuck-up that would require so much paperwork. There are just certain things you check when pre-flighting weapons, unloaded or not. It isn't rocket science.

If the aircrew did gloss over their pre-flight, they deserve every bit of punishment they get. I find it difficult to believe, though.
Matt

Are you a single seat pilot like the F/A-18 in your avatar? If so, that would explain a lot about your lack of knowledge of the crew concept. The aircraft commander probably didn't check the racks - he let the copilot do it and he did a half-assed job. Now they both probably get to fly desks from now until the end of their USAF careers - probably not far off with the downsizing going on. That's the thing about multi-placed aircraft - you spread out the duties and jobs and you expect others to do what they've been trained to do. When someone screws up the aircraft commander will go down for it...

Spooky

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:26:54 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
All of you people calling this tinfoil bs, just how did thoes nukes fly from ND to LA without anyone noticing them? It took the GROUND PERSONEL in LA to point them out.

No shit. We all know that a series of mistakes were made which resulted in the wrong warheads, on the right missiles, on the right aircraft, to go to the right place. We all know (especially those familiar with PRP, PNAF, etc) what kinds of shit had to go wrong for such a thing to happen. It sucks that it happened, but mistakes happen all the time, some more serious than others. There was no grand conspiracy there, some shit got screwed up, that's all. Take of the tinfoil, you'll live longer.

Not to mention the brass in charge has ALREADY been sacked, why kill a bunch of airmen AFTER the story was out, just to up the odds of really getting in trouble.

I swear, the conspiracy jackoffs would really do themselves a favor if the litmus tested the theories with the simple "WHY would anyone do what I suspect has been done?"

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:28:44 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Are you a single seat pilot like the F/A-18 in your avatar? If so, that would explain a lot about your lack of knowledge of the crew concept. The aircraft commander probably didn't check the racks - he let the copilot do it and he did a half-assed job. Now they both probably get to fly desks from now until the end of their USAF careers - probably not far off with the downsizing going on. That's the thing about multi-placed aircraft - you spread out the duties and jobs and you expect others to do what they've been trained to do. When someone screws up the aircraft commander will go down for it...

Spooky

I currently fly single seat. I have flown two-seat. I understand the crew concept. I also understand the notion that I am not going flying IN EITHER SEAT without having a look at the things that can fall off or be shot from my jet. I am simply amazed that the "crew concept" would blow this off.
Matt

ETA: I especially like the way you phrased your post, when I made no distinction among the aircrew involved.

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:34:31 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

ETA: I don't know why they even mentioned the Combat Weather guy, what the hell did he have to do with anything, other than being in the AF?

Because the ignorant tinfoiler idiots wanted to have a 'sinister agent' of a 'secret special forces unit' that they could throw in as an Oswald-like 'eliminated party to the conspiracy'....

So they made the Combat Weather guy into a 'Weather Commando' simply because CW is a special-ops job in the AF (along with most things that can get an enlisted Airman shot at besides SP duty)....

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:35:09 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

I currently fly single seat. I have flown two-seat. I understand the crew concept. I also understand the notion that I am not going flying IN EITHER SEAT without having a look at the things that can fall off or be shot from my jet. I am simply amazed that the "crew concept" would blow this off.
Matt

With you 100%, and that's why I'm so angry at these clowns at Minot--if the copilot thought he could get away with it, it's usually because the A/C had given him a reason to think so.

As I said, when you really get down to it, this was a leadership failure--many, many people convinced they could bend or break the rules dealing with the handling & storage of nukes. The ones who actually handled the weapons failed to follow published orders and will be rightly disciplined as a result, but they did it with the express or implied (probably both) permission of their superiors.

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:46:28 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Agreed. The biggest mistake in this whole mess was made by the lead B52 pilot for not personally checking out ALL the missles on BOTH wings. This should have been caught before that BUFF was airborne!

The other thing that astounds me is the fact that they stored the nukes and the conventional missiles in the same bunkers? What was the leadership thinking here? Kind of like me storing the blanks I use for training and regular ammo in the same magazine.

When I was a SAC nuke convoy commander, we stored real nukes and training shapes (inert weapons identical to the real ones) in the same bunkers. The live nukes were all trailer mounted and ready to be pulled out at a moments notice for uploading onto an aircraft, should the klaxon sound. The trainers were also classified, kept in the igloos, and some were always trailer mounted.

The only obvious physical difference was the word INERT stenciled on the trainers in 4" tall letters. However, when a live nuke was moved, even a short distance within a restricted area, serial numbers were verified by 2 people, and many more people were involved with the actual movement. The exact location of every nuke was constantly tracked and movements were monitored by a host of people. I couldn't move a nuke without having lots of people in on the planning, and also have "Alpha's" (WingCC callsign) immediate approval.

I did have a similar experience to the Minot one. During a no-notice HHQ ORI, we generated about 30 bombers with nukes. During one of dozens of convoys, the MMS tech rep hooked a trailer, with trainers, onto his truck and we convoyed it to a bomber, all the while thinking they were live nukes, and ready to use deadly force against anyone that appeared hostile to the convoy. The weapons were covered over with a tarp while still in the igloo. We didn't discover they were inert until the tarp was pulled at the aircraft. It was 0300, about 10 degrees below zero, and everyone had been busting their butts during 14-18 hour days. We managed to sneak it past the inspectors, most of whom were sleeping in a nice warm bed at the time, but the A1C tech rep got busted later.

I think the Minot fuckup was caused by a large number of people failing to follow well-established procedures, which tells me it was a failure of commanders.

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:48:02 AM EDT

[#25]

OST for later reading.

Posted: 11/25/2007 12:00:11 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I currently fly single seat. I have flown two-seat. I understand the crew concept. I also understand the notion that I am not going flying IN EITHER SEAT without having a look at the things that can fall off or be shot from my jet. I am simply amazed that the "crew concept" would blow this off.
Matt

With you 100%, and that's why I'm so angry at these clowns at Minot--if the copilot thought he could get away with it, it's usually because the A/C had given him a reason to think so.

As I said, when you really get down to it, this was a leadership failure--many, many people convinced they could bend or break the rules dealing with the handling & storage of nukes. The ones who actually handled the weapons failed to follow published orders and will be rightly disciplined as a result, but they did it with the express or implied (probably both) permission of their superiors.

Thanks guys; I feel better about this incident now and hopefully this kind of thing will never be allowed to happen again.

Posted: 11/25/2007 12:09:31 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
doesn't the AF still use quality spread slotting? both my dad (AF) and my sister's ex (USN) graduated near the top of their classes but were denied their 1st choice due to this policy.

dad wound up in B-47s instead of F-4s, and the ex wound up in rotary instead of F-18s.

You can put down what you want on the dream sheet, but unless you are #1 in the class, there are no guarantees. All based on what spot the military needs filled at the moment.

Posted: 11/25/2007 12:14:25 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
doesn't the AF still use quality spread slotting? both my dad (AF) and my sister's ex (USN) graduated near the top of their classes but were denied their 1st choice due to this policy.

dad wound up in B-47s instead of F-4s, and the ex wound up in rotary instead of F-18s.

You can put down what you want on the dream sheet, but unless you are #1 in the class, there are no guarantees. All based on what spot the military needs filled at the moment.

There is no guarantee even IF you are #1.
Matt

Posted: 11/25/2007 12:15:20 PM EDT

[#29]

I know that they are coincidences, because if WE had done it, they would have committed suicide by shooting themselves twice in the head like Gary Webb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

Posted: 11/25/2007 12:19:06 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

a special forces weather commando

A friend of mine's son had that MOS that was seriously injured by that JDAM that had the wrong coordinates in Afghanistan, Waldo. Don't make fun of things you know anyting about.

Posted: 11/25/2007 12:41:46 PM EDT

[#31]

There's nothing I can't say about this (Patriot Act), but the wrong people were to blame and I personally know one of the people involved.

Posted: 11/25/2007 12:46:52 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
There's nothing I can't say about this (Patriot Act), but the wrong people were to blame and I personally know one of the people involved.

As is almost always the case.

Posted: 11/25/2007 1:32:29 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So what they're really saying is over the course of a month or so, there was 2 motorcycle crashes and some guy DUI'd into a tree.

As far as the actual suicides go, I'm not going there right now. I just fail to see anything about a pair of fatal motorcycle accidents as suspicious. That seems like a HUGE stretch by the theorists to try to make it look and seem bigger than it is, or something it isn't.

I hate to feed the tinfoilers too. If I was directly involved with the incident and watching my life flash before my eyes, I might take a motorcycle ride and have an "accident" myself. It looks a lot better on your line of duty determination, and your family won't have to feel guilty that way. Then again, a lot of Airmen die in motorcycle wrecks every year, no telling if they were even related to the nuke incident.

ETA: I don't know why they even mentioned the Combat Weather guy, what the hell did he have to do with anything, other than being in the AF?

My buddy got into a MC crash a few months ago...almost killed him...

Then I did the sound for a funeral of some officer who killed himself a few weeks later.

Guess some dudes from the Ultra Delta Ninja Force Squadron were responsible

I need to go to the commisary and buy another giant roll of tinfoil before they come after my ass next.

Posted: 11/25/2007 1:39:32 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
I know that they are coincidences, because if WE had done it, they would have committed suicide by shooting themselves twice in the head like Gary Webb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

Or ended up like Barry Seal.

Posted: 11/25/2007 1:49:37 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I know that they are coincidences, because if WE had done it, they would have committed suicide by shooting themselves twice in the head like Gary Webb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

Or ended up like Barry Seal.

We were passive in that, we withdrew protection. Folks like Gary Webb and the deaths of the six INSLAW people are real cases - in that one as well one of the people shot himself in the head, twice. The Minot deaths appear to be coincidences.

Posted: 11/25/2007 2:40:04 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are you a single seat pilot like the F/A-18 in your avatar? If so, that would explain a lot about your lack of knowledge of the crew concept. The aircraft commander probably didn't check the racks - he let the copilot do it and he did a half-assed job. Now they both probably get to fly desks from now until the end of their USAF careers - probably not far off with the downsizing going on. That's the thing about multi-placed aircraft - you spread out the duties and jobs and you expect others to do what they've been trained to do. When someone screws up the aircraft commander will go down for it...

Spooky

I currently fly single seat. I have flown two-seat. I understand the crew concept. I also understand the notion that I am not going flying IN EITHER SEAT without having a look at the things that can fall off or be shot from my jet. I am simply amazed that the "crew concept" would blow this off.
Matt

ETA: I especially like the way you phrased your post, when I made no distinction among the aircrew involved.

I have never once had anyone other than the aircraft commander do the -1 preflight walkaround. The copilot has his own work to do without duplicating effort.

Posted: 11/25/2007 2:53:14 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are you a single seat pilot like the F/A-18 in your avatar? If so, that would explain a lot about your lack of knowledge of the crew concept. The aircraft commander probably didn't check the racks - he let the copilot do it and he did a half-assed job. Now they both probably get to fly desks from now until the end of their USAF careers - probably not far off with the downsizing going on. That's the thing about multi-placed aircraft - you spread out the duties and jobs and you expect others to do what they've been trained to do. When someone screws up the aircraft commander will go down for it...

Spooky

I currently fly single seat. I have flown two-seat. I understand the crew concept. I also understand the notion that I am not going flying IN EITHER SEAT without having a look at the things that can fall off or be shot from my jet. I am simply amazed that the "crew concept" would blow this off.
Matt

ETA: I especially like the way you phrased your post, when I made no distinction among the aircrew involved.

Sorry to offend... I believe I should have substituted knowledge with experience.

What I was trying to say is that there are varying degrees of pilots in the military as there are anywhere. Some are very precise and particular (from two posts you probably fall in this category) while others are less detail oriented. In this case I bet the copilot was not detail oriented and when he return he told the aircraft commander all the weapons checked good. Like the posters in the thread show - attention to detail.

Spooky

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:17:25 PM EDT

[#38]

'if you say so... Having never seen (or heard of) a weapon (conventional or not) on my airplane what wasn't supposed to be there, I find the scenerio presented by the media really tough to swallow. For instance, I've never seen a grey bomb where a blue one is supposed to be. I've never seen a live AIM-9 where a CATM is supposed to be. And that's just conventional shit.

I pre-flight every single weapon on my airplane EVERY time. I find it difficult to believe that a multi-crewed airplane missed that on pre-flight. I've caught many mistakes (unlocked racks, mis-set fuzes, etc) on pre-flight, but I've never seen a fuck-up that would require so much paperwork. There are just certain things you check when pre-flighting weapons, unloaded or not. It isn't rocket science.

If the aircrew did gloss over their pre-flight, they deserve every bit of punishment they get. I find it difficult to believe, though.
Matt

Matt, I am with you on this. I am not a pilot and do not claim to be one. However, I know several F16 pilots and they are very adament about doing their own safety preflight inspections. They also check every weapon, drop tanks etc. that go on their bird and have also found many mistakes.

This is why I stated earlier that the biggest mistake made was by the pilot of the BUFF not personally checking the loaded ordinance. I agree that there may have been many screwups made to this point, but once the pilot assumes command of the plane, it is his responsibility.

Posted: 11/25/2007 10:23:32 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

a special forces weather commando

Someone has to operate Halliburton's Weather Machine.

Posted: 11/25/2007 11:09:13 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

What do you think the results would be if the engineering dept of a nuclear sub was found to be cutting corners on safety & security?

tada

bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-uss-hampton-someone-talked.html

According to one source with knowledge of the investigation, the central problem involves how often sailors analyzed the chemical and radiological properties of the submarine’s reactor, which is typically checked daily.
During preparations for the boat’s Operational Reactor Safeguard Examination, which is typically conducted as a nuclear submarine ends its deployment, officials discovered that the sailors hadn’t checked the water in at least a month, and their division officer, the chemistry/radiological controls assistant, knew it, the source said.
They also learned that the logs had been forged — or “radioed,” in submarine parlance — later to cover up the lapse and make it look as though the sailors had been keeping up with required checks all along...

CO's gone, some other people gone, etc.

So yeah, a small number of lazy folks cutting corners can seriously mess things up. I don't see any tinfoil needed in the Minot thing. Just guys taking the easy route. The whole "failure of command" thing mentioned earlier apparently applies here as well.